Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Zuckerberg says employees moving out of Silicon Valley may face pay cuts

cnbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 233 posts

Re: Zuckerberg says employees moving out of Silicon Valley may face pay cuts

#181

Post by perl4ever »

volkk wrote: post #57
Hamuko wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The $150k is not what your work is directly valued at, but rather an agreement of what it'll take for you to drag your ass to San Francisco, which is objectively a bad place to live if you're a human that has to make budgets, and come to work at Facebook. Also yes, if Facebook starts to hire remote workers, then your value will drop because they now have the access to a pool of workers who don't want to drag their as…

i'm kind of super interested (also scared) in the effects FAANG companies allowing remote workers will have. sure, maybe salaries at FAANG might decrease as supply/competition rises, but then all of the other companies that arent FAANG now have to sort of raise the lower boundaries of their pay since they cant just say "well you can go ahead to move to SF if you dont like it". Are we looking at lower high end of the…

You have to consider that FAANG companies already outsourced work to companies that use both offshore and remote employees. Policy changes aren't necessarily as big a deal as they seem, or at least they aren't what they seem, because they concern the direct hiring practices only.

Re: Zuckerberg says employees moving out of Silicon Valley may face pay cuts

#182

Post by perl4ever »

Vysero wrote: post #145
bcyn wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course, it's not so cut and dry. It's sort of cyclical IMO: - There are already a ton of existing technology companies in the Bay Area, and also a ton of employees. - Students from schools around the country who are interested in tech might plan to move to the Bay Area due to the number of companies there. - If your company doesn't hire in the Bay Area, it may miss out on the chance to hire the employees in the gr…

So no tax or media related incentives to being in the Bay Area? You don't think it's worth more to Google to say: "Our headquarters are in SF" rather than: "Our headquarters are in podunk MT"? I wouldn't be surprised to find out that 90% of the reason FANG companies operate in large metropolitan areas has almost nothing to do with employees and everything to do with global image.

Ever notice how competing drug stores are frequently on the same intersection? You might think they would try to be far away from each other.

Re: Zuckerberg says employees moving out of Silicon Valley may face pay cuts

#183

Post by ponker »

Jemaclus wrote: post #2

This is one of the things that's always bothered me. Let's say you hire me for your company in San Francisco and pay me $150K. You've made a calculation: my value to the company is greater than $150K, and $150K is a price you're willing to pay to leverage that value. In other words, the company will (eventually) make more than $150K per year off my contributions to the company. But now if I decide to move to Tulsa, O…

But that's not how prices are set. The company isn't looking to hire you (unless they are, in which case you are set regardless of what happens to the world)... they are looking to hire someone who can do the job. So they start at $1. Will anyone take the job for $1? Not in Menlo Park. So they go to $2. Still nobody. $150K is where they have to be right now to hire the quantity and quality of people they want to, given the conditions of employment (for Facebook, the two biggest ones are that you have to move to the Bay Area and that they fire people very eagerly).

If you decide to move to Tulsa OK and you are a Jeff Dean sort, they'll just say "thank you for not quitting." If they reduce your pay to $90K... even if you hadn't moved, eventually they would have gotten around to firing you and replacing you with someone in Tulsa for $90K.

Re: Zuckerberg says employees moving out of Silicon Valley may face pay cuts

#184

Post by ponker »

enitihas wrote: post #9
Jemaclus wrote: post #2

This is one of the things that's always bothered me. Let's say you hire me for your company in San Francisco and pay me $150K. You've made a calculation: my value to the company is greater than $150K, and $150K is a price you're willing to pay to leverage that value. In other words, the company will (eventually) make more than $150K per year off my contributions to the company. But now if I decide to move to Tulsa, O…

> You've made a calculation: my value to the company is greater than $150K, and $150K is a price you're willing to pay to leverage that value. You are in for some surprises then. Companies don't pay you just in relation to the value you deliver. Most companies pay the least amount required to get the value you deliver. Now if you are competing against engineers who are willing to accept lower salary due to low CoL in…

Why not? Why shouldn't someone willing to do your job for less pay be allowed to do so? That person is more desperate for income. Someone willing to mow your lawn for $5 is probably much worse off than someone who says "I wouldn't do it for any less than $50." Even if you pay $50 regardless, isn't it most economically just to give that job to the person who was willing to do it for the least amount?

Re: Zuckerberg says employees moving out of Silicon Valley may face pay cuts

#185

Post by PunksATawnyFill »

jldugger wrote: post #76
Hamuko wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The $150k is not what your work is directly valued at, but rather an agreement of what it'll take for you to drag your ass to San Francisco, which is objectively a bad place to live if you're a human that has to make budgets, and come to work at Facebook. Also yes, if Facebook starts to hire remote workers, then your value will drop because they now have the access to a pool of workers who don't want to drag their as…

> The $150k is not what your work is directly valued at Indeed, presumably you are worth more than that to them. It's a pretty naked cash grab to cut salary in response to a location move, and somewhat illogical considering they moved their HQ to the bay area in the first place. If it's objectively bad and expensive, why not move your HQ to Austin or San Antonio or Portland? > if Facebook starts to hire remote worker…

Amen. Anyone running a company who opts to put it in San Francisco or Silicon Valley at this point is issuing a big F-U to employees.

And this pay-cut policy is bullshit. If employees are allowed to work offsite, then that site should not be dictated. It's a win/win, because although the employee saves money, so does the company. And thanks to Trump and Republicans, employees can't even deduct the money they spend on electricity, office equipment, and rent.

Re: Zuckerberg says employees moving out of Silicon Valley may face pay cuts

#187

Post by perl4ever »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #140
umeshunni wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think OP is talking about people caring about their own careers (i.e. growth, promotions etc).

Again, not everyone wants to progress all the way to the top in their careers. The higher you go, the more your job changes into helping people help people help people do the actual work, which isn't all that appealing if you chosen a particular career because of the lower-level work being done. It's like in Star Trek, with this common advice to given to captains on the show by their friends/colleagues: never let you…

"never let yourself be promoted to admiral"

This makes me think of Eisenhower, who I only found out recently apparently never saw combat, yet pretty much went to the top in his career and then became President.

Whether paperwork is boring or meaningless is a subjective value judgment. What if it's the paperwork for planning D-Day?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwight_D._Eisenhower

Re: Zuckerberg says employees moving out of Silicon Valley may face pay cuts

#188

Post by Tade0 »

pertymcpert wrote: post #172
TeMPOraL wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right. Bad phrasing. I meant X/3. I.e. after subtracting the essentials, I'd be able to afford 1/3 of good and services equivalent to what I could afford in my current location on previous salary.

If you're only being offered 1.5x your salary to move to London, then assuming you're in Poland, your current salary is very high for your region.

A lot has changed over the years here.

My friends in Warsaw are pulling anywhere in the range of $55-65k per annum before taxes - that's at corona rates, which knocked close to 8% off our currency's value.

Re: Zuckerberg says employees moving out of Silicon Valley may face pay cuts

#189

Post by GhettoChild »

PunksATawnyFill wrote: post #185
jldugger wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The $150k is not what your work is directly valued at Indeed, presumably you are worth more than that to them. It's a pretty naked cash grab to cut salary in response to a location move, and somewhat illogical considering they moved their HQ to the bay area in the first place. If it's objectively bad and expensive, why not move your HQ to Austin or San Antonio or Portland? > if Facebook starts to hire remote worker…

Amen. Anyone running a company who opts to put it in San Francisco or Silicon Valley at this point is issuing a big F-U to employees. And this pay-cut policy is bullshit. If employees are allowed to work offsite, then that site should not be dictated. It's a win/win, because although the employee saves money, so does the company. And thanks to Trump and Republicans, employees can't even deduct the money they spend on…

I have heard so many people justify companies locating in the Bay are due to the talent found in the area. While that may be true I have a hard time believing that companies would not be able to recruit in cheaper large cities like Austin, Dallas, Chicago, Philly, Etc if they offered Bay Area money.

Re: Zuckerberg says employees moving out of Silicon Valley may face pay cuts

#190

Post by proverbialbunny »

nostromo wrote: post #7

People should be warned that working remotely has been career suicide for as long as I've been in tech. Being "out of sight, out of mind" from management generally means you're passed over for promotions, and often the first to get cut during layoffs. It's just human nature. It's easier to layoff the person that's been working from across the country (or another country) than it is to layoff the person at the desk ne…

Often times a single person in a group working remote can cause problems. It's only when the entire team is remote at the same time, either entirely or partially on the same days, does remote stop becoming a concern in the ways you mention.

Teams tend to do better when they're sharing remote or sharing coming in. Teams tend to do the best (ymmv) when they're full remote but are local, so they can come in as much as they want to meetup when it is beneficial to do so.

Post reply on HN